Actually no, I said it was as sexist for them to be afraid of men because some men are rapists as it is racist to be afraid of black people because some black people are violent criminals. In both cases, the fearful person is ascribing the behavior of a small subset of a group to all members of that group, which is the very definition of sexism/racism. It's right there on the page; try to keep up.

all men are not rapists- the vast majority of rapists are men. the same equivalence cannot be drawn to race.

I assure you that you have no reason to be flattered. You repeatedly dismiss crimes against men and insist that we should ONLY discuss crimes against women. You repeatedly suggest that male crime victims are to blame for the crimes perpetrated against them, while female crime victims are not. There's nothing flattering about that.

I've actually changed my mind and come to believe that you genuinely don't understand why anyone would want to talk about crimes perpetrated against male victims, because you literally do not give a shit. Crimes against men -- and the fact that men are more likely to be victimized than women -- simply don't matter to you, because it doesn't bother you if men are beaten, stabbed, shot, or murdered. My position -- that violent crimes are a bad thing, regardless of the gender of the victim -- simply doesn't compute to you, because to you, when a woman is victimized it's a tragedy, but when a man is victimized, who cares?

Anywho, it's been real, but it's late in my part of the country, so I'm signing off.

i never said they werent a bad thing, just that they werent relevant to the topic. i dont know why you insist on comparing two different crimes on the basis of "theyre bad". all crimes are bad by definition. women arent afraid because of crimes that happen to men, nor should they be because that makes no sense.

its a statistical fact that young men engaging in risky behaviors are the most likely to be victims of violent crime.
look, heres a report from the UK:

Some groups are much more at risk of violent crime than others. For example, young men aged between 16 and 24 are nearly four times more likely to be a victim of violent crime than the general population.

Nor have we included consideration of sexual offences because the issues raised are sufficiently different from those relating to wounding and homicide to make it difficult to cover both topics adequately in a single report

• In four-fifths of violent incidents the perpetrator/s were male (79% for 2002/03 BCS). Seven per cent of cases involved perpetrators of both sexes. Again these proportions remain relatively unchanged in recent years. However, the proportion of domestic violence incidents in which the offender was female has increased significantly since the last results (2001/02 BCS) from 21 per cent to 32 per cent.
• Victims were asked to estimate the age of the offenders. Where this was possible, latest results show that victims judged that there was an offender of school age in ten per cent of violent incidents. An offender aged between 16 and 24 was involved in nearly half (48%) of violent incidents overall. Over two-thirds (69%) of mugging incidents involved an offender estimated to be in this age bracket. Offenders involved in domestic violence tended to be older than those in other types of violence; 71 per cent of incidents involved an offender aged over 25. The estimated ages of offenders have remained consistent across time.

I dont agree with him, if you're walking through an area in which people of a certain race are renowned for being likely to commit a crime and you avoid them, you're not being racist, because whichever colour they would be for that area, you'd be avoiding them. I don't think you can be racist against the entire human race?

The thing about "Better safe then sorry" is that, in this particular case, it's only being applied in the sense of sexual assault. If safe is your approach, you need to fear other things that may harm you that aren't just rape, a female may happen to pull a gun and mug you. You should also be terrified in public places of diseases to a point of germ-o-phobia. However, in any of the feminists I've met, this is not the case. They don't fear disease, lightning strikes or violent crime (not sexually related) anywhere near as much as a random person raping them. When you look at the statistics by sexual assault information organizations, some 73% of rape is done by someone the victim is at least acquainted with.

Rape is horrible, and rape is far more often man forcing on woman than the other way around, I get that. However fearing it to a level of paranoia while blissfully ignoring potentially life threatening other things, that are statistically more likely to happen, based on the gender of a random person seems pretty crazy to me. Non sexual violent crime is far more likely, and in America the largest offenders based on race are African Americans. By the safe approach I should assume very single African American person is going to pull a weapon and mug me. See where this goes when you apply it to things beyond sexual assault?

To each their own, I'm not trying to offend anyone, only trying to get people to apply their logic in other situations so they can see what it sounds like beyond the one particular case they are very emotional about.

I agree with the "better safe than sorry" explanation. If you think about it, even when we were growing up our parents would tell us not to associate ourselves with strangers. They may be dangerous and "bring us to harm". I guess it also sticks with us as we grow up. This is true not only for the women but also for men. We learned the need to become conscious of possible dangers in the environment like a solitary figure that has been following you as you are walking home.

If you are allowed to call me racist because i too want to minimize risk by avoiding the ones who do the majority of violent crimes then i have the right to call you a sexist for doing the same

i dont think anyone has suggested avoiding men, just avoiding putting oneself in a vulnerable position. it works equally well for men and women. how often you want to violate your safety is up to ones own personal judgement.

i dont think anyone has suggested avoiding men, just avoiding putting oneself in a vulnerable position. it works equally well for men and women. how often you want to violate your safety is up to ones own personal judgement.

No people specifically said living in fear of men.

Which is exactly the same as being afraid of black people in a "ghetto" type area.

With a certain persons (Which shall not be namned)"demise" we reached a point of complete understanding and agreement. There simply isn't anything to discuss that hasn't already been discussed. This is how all threads should end, in friendship and laughter.

I'm not sure I agree there was ever anything to discuss. The question of the OP was answered promptly; everything following that has just been people arguing because people need to argue. I must say, I haven't seen anyone "win" in this thread, yet. Both "sides" conveniently ignore the main selling points of the other "side," a pretty common strategy and the reason I don't really participate anymore.

If the thread was more along the lines of "why do we live in a society where women feel it is necessary to be afraid?" then I believe we might have some interesting discussion. The answer to that question is not really definitive and most people here don't know enough about sociology to really do more than guess. I believe the question "why are women so afraid?" has a very simple and straightforward answer, though.

Also, Xanj was just setting you up since he knows I'm a man-hating lesbian.

That would require writing a giant ass novel about this debate then sail off to a different country with Elves.

Yes that sound great, time to get to work Aeluron. PM me when you're done. So I can sail away... with elves!

---------- Post added 2013-02-12 at 05:41 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Lysah

I'm not sure I agree there was ever anything to discuss. The question of the OP was answered promptly; everything following that has just been people arguing because people need to argue. I must say, I haven't seen anyone "win" in this thread, yet. Both "sides" conveniently ignore the main selling points of the other "side," a pretty common strategy and the reason I don't really participate anymore.

If the thread was more along the lines of "why do we live in a society where women feel it is necessary to be afraid?" then I believe we might have some interesting discussion. The answer to that question is not really definitive and most people here don't know enough about sociology to really do more than guess. I believe the question "why are women so afraid?" has a very simple and straightforward answer, though.

Also, Xanj was just setting you up since he knows I'm a man-hating lesbian.

I'm not sure I agree there was ever anything to discuss....-If the thread was more along the lines of "why do we live in a society where women feel it is necessary to be afraid?" then I believe we might have some interesting discussion.

Perhaps there wasn't. Myself wasn't here from the beginning, I jumped in when the *What motivates rape*discussion started. As we pretty much came to a philosophical agreement on that point we moved on to chatting. And yes, such a thread would probably be interesting and allow for a wider area of discussion.

Also, Xanj was just setting you up since he knows I'm a man-hating lesbian.

i dont think anyone has suggested avoiding men, just avoiding putting oneself in a vulnerable position. it works equally well for men and women. how often you want to violate your safety is up to ones own personal judgement.

If I'm walking down the street at night and see a minority male and i cross the street to avoid them but don't do the same for a white male you will call me a racist
If a women is walking down the street at night and they cross the street to avoid a male but doesn't do the same if it is a female then they are sexist